Meghalaya High Court deprecates nepotism, "uncle culture" in appointments to government jobs; imposes ₹3 lakh costs on State

The Meghalaya High Court recently imposed costs of ₹3 lakh on the State government for the improper manner in which appointment of drivers were made to Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation [Pynskhemlang Nongrang v The Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation]..A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh said that favouritism and nepotism should have no role in appointments to government jobs and deprecated the "uncle culture prevalent" in India when it comes to subjective assessment process like interviews. “The Indian psyche is such that the subjective part of the assessment, more often than not, is tainted, influenced or guided by nepotism or the usual uncle culture or even more disagreeable extraneous considerations,” the Court said.This was after noting that the petitioner in the case, who had scored more in practical examination which tested driving skills, had lost after scoring lesser marks in the interview in comparison to other candidates.The Court emphasised that the overwhelming message conveyed by fundamental rights under the Constitution is that in the selection process pertaining to employment or appointment, irrelevant considerations must not come into play.“But just as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence are to be kept out of the consideration, favouritism and nepotism would also have no role to play in the process of selection,” the division bench underscored..The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment passed by a single-judge challenging the selection process adopted by the directorate for the appointment of two drivers.The bench took into account that the appellant had secured the highest marks in the practical examination testing driving skills while others barely met the qualifying marks. However, a few of the others obtained exceptionally high marks in the interview to topple the appellant and bag the post..It was noted that the methodology of giving equal weightage to both the interview and exam struck the court as odd, especially in light of recent judgments that require the subjective element to be kept to a minimum.“When it comes to the appointment of a driver, common sense instructs that it is the driving skill which should be the paramount consideration.”.Thus, it was observed that the records revealed that a completely arbitrary and unfair procedure was adopted at the interview which was unbecoming of any respectable or acceptable selection process.The Court explained the purpose for giving a greater weightage to the objective assessment stating that, “the Indian psyche is such that the subjective part of the assessment, more often than not, is tainted, influenced or guided by nepotism or the usual uncle culture or even more disagreeable extraneous considerations.”.The Court tore through the selection process while opining that all vestiges of objectivity were thrown to the wind.The single-judge could not appreciate the “colossal mockery that was undertaken in the name of the interview” since the records of the process had not been called, the division bench opined..However, the bench went on to note that it could not grant the relief the appellant desired most since the appointments were already firmed up and in place for several months as a result of the appellant sleeping over his rights for a considerable period of time before approaching the Court.“The writ court is slow to extend any relief to a laggard,” read the order..Nonetheless, the Court went on to provide the appellant relief in the form of favourable consideration for any future selection process for appointment. The appellant was also granted a five-year latitude to the appellant in the age bar for application to government positions or in state public sector undertakings.Additionally, the appellant was awarded costs amounting to ₹3 lakh to be paid by the State as he lost on a lifetime opportunity to obtain a position that he appeared to have deserved..The respondents were directed to bring the issue to the notice of the vigilance authorities to take action against those who conducted the interview and hijacked the process without adherence to ordinary norms of fairness.The State was also asked to undertake an awareness drive and educate people who would be involved in future selection processes.“The selection process in the present case completely failed to look for the best person for the job and this faulty exercise should be made a model by the State as to what a selection process can never be,” said the court..Advocates SR Lyngdoh, HR Nath and KVE Kharnongbak appeared for the appellant while the respondents were represented by AAG B Bhattacharjee, GA R Colney, Advocates S Sengupta and K Ch Gautam..[Read Order]